Ozymandius Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 LOL. crayonz is really good at baiting. Everyone should read Dibs' post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 I love this thread.....I don't believe people are actually arguing the things that they are arguing. Just to keep you honest.......but it is funny watching the reactions you get. There were 96 games played by NFC teams against NFC teams which resulted in 96 wins & 96 losses. That is exactly at (not under) 500. There were 96 games played by AFC teams against AFC teams which resulted in 96 wins & 96 losses. That is exactly at (not over) 500. Keep up the good work. don't bring mathematics into a thread, unless you are sure that crayonz, BJ and Holcombs Arm can all understand it and not dispute it. Your logic is very correct and i am surprised that every other poster since this hasn't said "yeah, crayonz read Dibs post again" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 The NFC sucks but they are under 500? That makes no sense. They play almost all of their games against tough opponents and that is why they are under 500. The AFC plays against easy teams 12 times. That's why they are over 500. I am a Bills fan like all of us but I am being objective. You are being subjective. Tougher games = more losses. That's why the NFC was under 500. This thread is beyond comprehension. But I definitely like this line of reasoning. The NFC is great because most of the teams are under 500. Therefore, the Bills at 7-9 are perhaps only 1 or 2 more losses from a Superbowl! Initially, you might think that the Bears and Chargers are better than us because they beat us. Ha! but that's where you'd be wrong! We're way better because we finished under 500 while they played weak teams and got great records. This is DeLucian logic and its irrefutable. See we should have started Nall and lost a few more games and we could be even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 don't bring mathematics into a thread, unless you are sure that crayonz, BJ and Holcombs Arm can all understand it and not dispute it. Your logic is very correct and i am surprised that every other poster since this hasn't said "yeah, crayonz read Dibs post again" His post would be perfect if we were talking about 6 years but we're not. Start your own thread about the last 6 years if you want but I won't argue that. Players move around too much for it to make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 This thread is beyond comprehension. But I definitely like this line of reasoning. The NFC is great because most of the teams are under 500. Therefore, the Bills at 7-9 are perhaps only 1 or 2 more losses from a Superbowl! Initially, you might think that the Bears and Chargers are better than us because they beat us. Ha! but that's where you'd be wrong! We're way better because we finished under 500 while they played weak teams and got great records. This is DeLucian logic and its irrefutable. See we should have started Nall and lost a few more games and we could be even better. OMFG how many times do I have to say that this thread is about THIS YEAR ONLY and about the CONFERENCES AS A WHOLE, not any individual team. I could argue like that against the guy who said Denver would be a contender in the NFC but they went 1-3 versus NFC teams. I won't do it because this is about the WHOLE conference. That's why I named the thread what I did. Look, over the last 14 and two-thirds years I think the AFC is better ok? Geez, why is everyone so sensitive about the AFC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 His post would be perfect if we were talking about 6 years but we're not. Start your own thread about the last 6 years if you want but I won't argue that. Players move around too much for it to make any sense. Wow how many have you had tonite? The whole point is this season and now (not 6 years ago, or 60), and statistically speaking the AFC has played better than the NFC in the interconference games. On top of that Dibs made a great point that the AFC will be .500 AFC games, and NFC will be .500 in NFC games (wow that feels like such an obvious statement). Since the AFC won more games against the NFC in the interconference games, the AFC is statistically the stronger conference. Your argument about the NFC having tougher games is invalid if the AFC proved to be the better conference, as the more accomplished, better teams more likely come from the AFC than the NFC. Edit: to clarify Dibs post 96 games for AFC vs AFC in one season would be 8 home teams times 12 games= 96 games. not six seasons, just one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Look, over the last 14 and two-thirds years I think the AFC is better ok? Geez, why is everyone so sensitive about the AFC? I thought the NFC was better? I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 Wow how many have you had tonite? The whole point is this season and now (not 6 years ago, or 60), and statistically speaking the AFC has played better than the NFC in the interconference games. On top of that Dibs made a great point that the AFC will be .500 AFC games, and NFC will be .500 in NFC games (wow that feels like such an obvious statement). Since the AFC won more games against the NFC in the interconference games, the AFC is statistically the stronger conference. Your argument about the NFC having tougher games is invalid if the AFC proved to be the better conference, as the more accomplished, better teams more likely come from the AFC than the NFC. 96 games? Hoops plays 80 or 82 and hockey plays the other amount Baseball play 162 NFL plays 16 16 * 6 = 96. I don't care about the last 6 years, just this year. I don't know why anyone would want to argue about 96. It makes no sense at all. Maybe I'll argue like you guys. Duke Preston stinks and Roy Williams is great so the NFC is better. There, are you happy now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 I thought the NFC was better? I'm confused. I was being facetious about 14 and 2/3rds years to help prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 96 games? Hoops plays 80 or 82 and hockey plays the other amount Baseball play 162 NFL plays 16 16 * 6 = 96. I don't care about the last 6 years, just this year. I don't know why anyone would want to argue about 96. It makes no sense at all. Maybe I'll argue like you guys. Duke Preston stinks and Roy Williams is great so the NFC is better. There, are you happy now? i just edited the post for clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 I was being facetious about 14 and 2/3rds years to help prove a point. What point was that again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 i just edited the post for clarification. you mean this? Edit: to clarify Dibs post 96 games for AFC vs AFC in one season would be 8 home teams times 12 games= 96 games. not six seasons, just one 8 home teams times 12 games? Not too many teams get 12 home games. I'm sure the NFL would like it if the Patriots did. I'm not sure why you pick 8 home teams. "Clarify" is derived from the word "clear". "Stupify" is what your post did. I think you know the word from which that is derived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 What point was that again? That picking a 6 year period in a thread about one year is not a valid thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 you mean this?8 home teams times 12 games? Not too many teams get 12 home games. I'm sure the NFL would like it if the Patriots did. I'm not sure why you pick 8 home teams. "Clarify" is derived from the word "clear". "Stupify" is what your post did. I think you know the word from which that is derived. no you dunce, in the 96 games, each of the 16 teams in the conference host their in-conference opponent 6 times. thus each team will play twelve games, 6 home and 6 away. This would mean that there are home teams in 12 x 8 or 16 x 6 games, either way they both equal 96. and for your aggressive language and demeanor, i am gunna offer you a cookie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 75% of the games have nothing to do with the NFC being under 500 but 25% of the games are the cause? Run those keys over your car because your paint is safe, but keep your fingernails away. The NFC is under 500 because they play more NFC teams. This does not prove the conference is better but it goes a long way. If the NFC only played NFC teams, the NFC would be exactly .500. The NFL is .500. Every football game has one winner and one loser. Therefore, it is the AFC vs NFC that tips the conference winning percentages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 If the NFC only played NFC teams, the NFC would be exactly .500. The NFL is .500. Every football game has one winner and one loser. Therefore, it is the AFC vs NFC that tips the conference winning percentages... Shhhhh.....crayonz is on a roll. BTW ( I love this thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Shhhhh.....crayonz is on a roll. BTW ( I love this thread) Agreed. Its like a study in alternative mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolstoy Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Why 96 games? Don't make this like the thread that said Losman would get better in his 17th game. 96 games is 6 years. So over the last 6 years the conferences are even. Great. I'm just talking about this year. There is so much player turnover I don't think you can realistically go beyond 1 year in any analysis. You are not making much sense at all. According to your logic, the NFC is a tougher conference, so it will have show more losses because its own teams are getting beaten up by each other in their conference games. Conversely, the AFC will show more wins because the conference is filled with a bunch of patsies which are easy to beat. Ask yourself. What's wrong with your thinking here? For every loss that an NFC team suffers against another "dominating" NFC team, there is exactly one winning NFC team, and one losing NFC team. And for every win that an AFC team gets against a patsy AFC team, there is exactly one winning AFC team, and one losing AFC team. So, the math works like this: After a full season, 16 AFC teams played 12 conference games for a total of 192 games. Since each game involved exactly one winning AFC team and one losing AFC team, there were exactly 96 wins and 96 losses (divide 192 by 2!). The same for the NFC: 96 wins and 96 losses. If there are more losses on the NFC side, it is because they lost more games to the AFC. Thus, the AFC is a superior conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightRider Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Shhhhh.....crayonz is on a roll. BTW ( I love this thread) Best one in quite a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 You are not making much sense at all. According to your logic, the NFC is a tougher conference, so it will have show more losses because its own teams are getting beaten up by each other in their conference games. Conversely, the AFC will show more wins because the conference is filled with a bunch of patsies which are easy to beat. Ask yourself. What's wrong with your thinking here? For every loss that an NFC team suffers against another "dominating" NFC team, there is exactly one winning NFC team, and one losing NFC team. And for every win that an AFC team gets against a patsy AFC team, there is exactly one winning AFC team, and one losing AFC team. So, the math works like this: After a full season, 16 AFC teams played 12 conference games for a total of 192 games. Since each game involved exactly one winning AFC team and one losing AFC team, there were exactly 96 wins and 96 losses (divide 192 by 2!). The same for the NFC: 96 wins and 96 losses. If there are more losses on the NFC side, it is because they lost more games to the AFC. Thus, the AFC is a superior conference. I think you're missing the primary premise a 7 and 9 team is 7-9. 7-9=-2. A 10 and 6 team is 10-6. 10-6=4. -2 is smaller than 4 therefore you have to divide by 16. So you can easily see that the team below 500 is mathematically better than the above 500 team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts